1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to licenses and sales of collections of items, such as for example collections of movies, collections of music, collections of baseball cards, collections of coins, collections of books, collections of postage stamps, or collections of other such items; in aspects thereof, the invention relates to a user interface with which a user can interact with a local library server, with the effect of being able to make purchases to complete collections of objects conveniently, easily, quickly, and without substantial duplication.
2. Related Art
Collectables have been popular throughout history. Fads come and go and collectables; such as Beanie Babies, Lladro, and Pokemon are favorites among collectors. Companies, like the Franklin Mint, have established entire businesses around selling items that are part of collections to those who would collect them.
Media collections have long been popular: from record albums on vinyl to VHS and DVD movies. Film franchises have become very lucrative for motion picture companies. Blockbuster movies practically dictate multiple sequels. The same is true with television series and specials; ten or more seasons for a successful show is not uncommon. Distributors of DVD content have recognized the viewing public's interest in viewing this type of content on demand and have accommodated them by providing series sets with complete seasons, trilogies, and the like.
Problem: Completing Collections
A first known problem is that users often like to have these complete collections of series, such as for example “all Star Wars films,” or “all episodes of Survivor,” or “all films with Kate Beckinsale in them,” or “all films directed by Quentin Tarantino.” Unfortunately, it is difficult for the user to maintain the knowledge of which films they already own, and it would be undesirable for the user to buy multiple copies of movies as they try to complete a collection.
This problem is described herein with regard to collections of movies (such as imprinted on physical media like DVD's), but in general the described problem also applies to other types of collections, such as collections of music, collections of baseball cards, collections of coins, collections of books, collections of postage stamps, and the like.
Aspects of this problem are that “collections” of series might be defined in many different ways:
Easy Definitions of Collections                The collection might be predefined by the seller, such as for example, all “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” episodes.        The collection might be defined by a third party (not the seller), such as for example, predefined by a third party.        
More Complex Definitions                The collection or database might be defined in either a dynamic or static manner:                    An example of a collection defined in a static manner might include “all movies made in the 1930's”.            An example of a collection defined in a dynamic manner might include “all movies with Kate Beckinsale in them,” as a new movie might be released next year meeting that criterion. Another example of a collection defined in a dynamic manner might include the “all time greatest selling 40 movies,” as a new movie might cause that collection to change.                        The collection or database might be defined in either an objective or subjective manner:                    An example of a collection defined in a subjective manner might include those approved by a known critic or expert on a particular genre, perhaps with bookmarks or clippings included with the other media. One such example might include “Steve Swernofsky's 50 favorite movies and commentary thereon.”            An example of a collection defined in a subjective manner might include those that are private to an individual person, such as for example, “my favorite driving songs,” “my favorite horror movies,” or “my favorite science fiction thrillers without any aliens.” In one embodiment, access to these private collections might be restricted to the user who created them.            An example of a collection defined in a subjective manner might include a collection defined by interaction between a universal collection or database of possible items, and a query specifying a sub-collection of that universal collection or database. The “universal” collection or database itself, and the query applied to that database, might themselves be either or both dynamic or static.                            Once a collection is completely purchased, that collection might be updated by circumstances, such as when new media streams are produced or released for distribution. A collection of “all Star Wars films” would be updated every time there is a new such film, and a collection of “all episodes of the Sopranos” would be updated every time there is a new such episode (possibly as often as once per week). It is an object of the invention to make it easy for the users to update and complete their collections.                Although queries applied to databases are often thought of as being Boolean in nature, involving comparisons, AND, and OR operators, there is no particular requirement in embodiments of the invention for restriction thereto. For example, a weighted distance or similarity metric, such as described in the “mosaic” application, might be workable, or other clustering techniques might be used.                                                
Collections Defined In Response To Their Elements                In yet another example, the collection itself might be defined (consciously or unconsciously) by a user in a way that is difficult to describe in a structured way. The likes and dislikes of a user for media streams might typically involve one or more genres, such as “action” films, or “western” films, but it can be difficult to easily present all films likely to be wanted by the user in a convenient and easily-understood format. A collector of coins might only like gold coins and not silver coins or only gold coins that predate 1100 BC.                    Similarly, it might be difficult for the user to easily express what genres or collections they are looking for. For example, selecting all film versions of Shakespearean plays, including take-offs such as “West Side Story,” might be quite inconvenient for the user to specify. This problem is similar if the user likes a particular genre, but dislikes a particular subgenre, such as liking all westerns except for those starring Ronald Reagan.                        
Partial Solutions: Completing Collections
Partial solutions to this known problem involve making it easier for the user to determine those items that fall within the collection the user wishes to define, with the effect of allowing the user to make purchases to complete collections of objects.                Speculative download or speculative ingestion allow the user to watch a movie with only the difficulty of entering payment information. However, this can still be a problem when the user indicates an entire group of movies to purchase, as a bulk purchase might involve entering payment information repeatedly. One known solution is the “shopping cart” model, but this does not offer the user any sense of security that their collection will be made complete.        The “guide” and “mosaic” techniques for presentation of movie titles or movie posters allow the user to more easily determine which items are “close” to particular items selected by the user, but there is still a difficulty in distinguishing which of those movies are already owned by the user (and thus available for immediate presentation) and which are not yet owned by the user (and thus only available after download or ingestion).        The “guide” and “mosaic” techniques for presentation also allow the user to more easily determine whether a particular item is “near” the preferences expressed by the user, but there is still a problem with relating user preferences (explicitly or implicitly specified) to suggested titles to buy, and there is no guarantee that a user will not accidentally purchase an item they already own.        
Problem: How to “Complete” A Collection
A problem is that absence from the user's portion of the collection might be defined in one of multiple ways:
Multiple Copies: Most users will desire to own only one copy of any particular item, especially in the case of media streams. However, for some users, such as lending libraries or purchasers of multiple licenses to software, it might be desirable to own more than one copy of the media stream. In these cases, it might be desirable to ask the user for a criterion as to when the collection is complete, such as how many copies make for a “complete” collection.
Multiple Prices: It might sometimes be less expensive to purchase an entire collection rather than to purchase the individual items needed to complete that collection. Alternatively, there might be other collections sold as a unit that (individually or when grouped together) would allow the user to complete that collection. In these cases, it would be advantageous for the user to want to obtain the best possible coverage at the least cost.
Multiple Rights. Most users will desire, for each particular item, to own one copy of that item outright. However, for some types of items, especially media streams, the user might already have some rights to that item. In these cases, it would be advantageous for the user not to duplicate the rights they have in any particular item.
Multiple Versions. Most users will desire, for each particular item, to have only one version of that item. However, for some types of items (especially media streams), or for some users (especially avid collectors), it might be desirable to ask the user whether distinct versions should be considered different for purposes of completing the collection. For example, some users might prefer to have both the French version and the English version of the movie “Barbarella,” while others would prefer to have only one or the other version.
Problem: Not Purchasing Duplicates
A problem is that, subject to the “multiple copies” problem described above, it would be advantageous to not order anything the user already owns. Accordingly, it would be preferable if it were easily possible to determine what the user owns without having to obtain any relatively large amount of information from the user.
In one embodiment, a system might keep a log of all media streams already owned by the user or a log of all media streams that have been imported by the user into the system, with the effect of incrementally providing the same result.
In alternative embodiments, a system might keep a log of hash ID's or secure hashes of known inputs, with the effect of providing the same results.
In still other embodiments, a system might use physical detection, such as RFID or GPS, to determine if physical objects are in fact owned by the user, with the effect of providing the same results. This embodiment would be effective when the objects themselves are physical and cannot easily be tracked electronically.
In still other embodiments, a system might include software and/or hardware associated with each owned object that announces the presence of that object.
Accordingly, it would be advantageous to provide a technique for being able to conveniently purchase collections of objects without duplicate purchases of objects in those collections already owned by the user. These and other advantages are described in other and further detail below.